Bitcoin Forum

Since the amount of bitcoin is fixed, those with deep pockets will accumulate more and more bitcoin, preferring to spend inferior currencies instead while hoarding (or saving) the bitcoin. Middle and lower class consumers will eventually need to sell, while high net worth individuals and corporations face almost no pressure to sell their bitcoins since they have considerable other assets. Ultimately, the supply of bitcoin will move into the hands of the worlds richest individuals and corporations.

How does one begin to debunk this obvious fallacy?

"Ultimately, the supply of bitcoin will move into the hands of the worlds richest individuals and corporations."

then the early adopters would be part of it (we).

I have 0.2 not much but I am going to wait tell it's much much higher to sell em.

You're going to need to accumulate more than that, no point in holding so little.

Whats the point in hoarding all the coins until only a few people have them??? Spending and using the coin gives it worth, not just holding them, it has to have a use to be worth anything.

keep 1 BTC and you should be fine  ;)

but as CaptainBeck said, spending is important and you help the complete system. you can safe some BTC and also spent some BTC at the same time.

ofc save some like any form of fiat, but spending gives it value, because unlike things like art, no one holds btc cause it looks nice!

Not really.  Bitcoin is both an investment and a payment system.  It only has to succeed at one of those.  As long as it's a safe place to park your money, and people continue to do so, it will have value, just like gold or silver or any other commodity.  But yes, there has to be a certain amount of trading going on in order to set a stable exchange rate.

Actually, the silver Casascius is a really beautiful coin.  :)

Counter argument is that all of these large holders are selling off their bitcoin and it gets distributed to many individuals, but then again many big investors and companies are interested in bitcoin now. No one really knows.

A fixed supply currency, after achieving full market saturation, would provide a return equal to the growth rate of its economy, i.e. the risk-free interest rate.  To what degree do wealthy investors tend to look for better returns than the risk-free interest rate?  To what degree do relatively less wealthy people tend to diversify their holdings in order to minimize risk, e.g. for pension funds?  The supply of bitcoins will be held solely by the wealthy only if both of these are zero (obviously untrue).

Early Adopters will hace most of coins, Who believes in Crypto today those are going to enjoy latter but who just say Damn"¨they are going to regret tomorrow. just think 7B people and only 21 M bitcoin.

Uh... 0.2 is not little. It may look little now, not in a few years time it will be massive.

We are talking about 20 million satoshis here.

Even in today's value BTC0.2 can buy you quite a few meals. At time of writing, BTC0.2 can buy US$160.

Inherited wealth is usually squandered*, so initial distribution seems largely irrelevant in the long run.

*http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynrosenblatt/2011/12/09/wealth-transfers-how-to-reverse-the-70-failure-rate/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynrosenblatt/2011/12/09/wealth-transfers-how-to-reverse-the-70-failure-rate/)

Perhaps it will happen.

I once heard of a theory that if the wealth of everyone in the world were to be equalised today, those who were wealthy before the equalisation would start to become wealthy again in just a week.

May be one day the central banks will hold a vast majority of bitcoins. The rest of the world will work with nano-satoshis. The global economy would be worth 1 million satoshis or 1000 trillion nano satoshis, or BTC0.01000000.

QEs then would mean central banks buying assets with a satoshi, a whole one.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Is your statement true for gold? NO. For the same reason it isn't true for Bitcoin.